This is the California page: http://thesolutionsproject.org/infographic/#ca what is missing, there is zero baseline energy generation. That's right, all wind and solar. The closest that comes to baseband is hydroelectric, which during drought years like now, would mean powering the state at the detriment of all sorts of ecosystems.
I get that we can improve our energy options, but you need that base load covered, and that is either nuclear or fossil fuels at the moment.
I don't know if there is enough raw material in the world to produce enough batteries, but that could theoretically be the answer to baseload. I just don't think it's feasible.
I've seen hybrid systems sold to homeowners where solar power is used to charge a battery, and surplus beyond that is used for heating hot water storage. They're more of less completly independent from the grid, both for power and heat.
There is another approximate solution to the baseload and storage problem:
A global power network.
Peak loads would balance themselves approximately with the lack of need of energy at the opposite side of the earth.
Also, wind and solar energy generation would vary much less on a global scale.
Of course, there are calculations as to why this currently ineffective (AFAIK mainly loss of energy through transmission) but who knows when the next superconductor appears that could make it feasible.
Economically, it shouldn't cost much more than an internet.
If power is transfered as high voltage DC, the loss is a lot less than what we're used to with AC. But I'm not sure it works all that well on a global scale. Transfering MWs of energy over thousands of km is not trivial by any metric.
As long as we have superconductors, but we don't. It is currently impossible to move a megawatt[1] from Europe to the US over wires. Software has Amdahl's law, and electricity has Ohm's law. Even the smallest resistance adds up over distance and that translates into energy lost as heat. Early electrical engineers will say "But wait, we can raise the voltage, and that will reduce the current for the same amount of power!" which you can, but there is another constant, called the dielectric constant which is the point at which a voltage will "jump the gap" across an insulator to get to the other side. So you can't raise the voltage high enough in this cable to reduce current without it then jumping past any insulator you have into the ground.
There are examples of "fixed loss" systems where your loss is independent of distance, one of those is to use your excess power to make a long chain hydrocarbon and then transport the hydrocarbon by supertanker and then burn it to convert it back into electricity. You could also simply charge giant battery ships which would then head over to the destination and discharge (this is another electricity -> chemical ... chemical -> electricity transaction)
[1] I realize that is imprecise, the definition I'm using is put a megawatt of electrical power "in" (power cables) in Paris and pull a megawatt "out" of the other end in New York.
IIRC current HVDC transmission technology reaches about 1% loss per 1000 km, so in that sense continent-wide grids are feasible without superconductors or some other "future" technology.
Well storage doesn't have to be batteries, if you have excess power you can pump water up hill and then use hydro-electric generation to get it back, and this is done in some places. But it needs water (can be problematic) and a large height difference (also problematic).
There was a really clever German idea to have giant concrete cylinders that sat on top of a hydraulic fluid (could be water, could be something else) and excess energy would pump in fluid, raising the cylinder, and then excess energy draw would drain fluid through a generator. It has the advantage that it can be built locally without the need for a big height difference. But you need a lot of them for serious base load compensation.
There's no mention of storage. Wind is highly variable, even over wide areas. There's denial about this from wind enthusiasts. But look at California's CAISO wind output graph.[1] That's real data, from yesterday. Wind output varied about 3:1 over the course of the day. Peak output was around midnight when it wasn't needed. PJM (most of the Northeast) had its wind power vary over an 11:1 range in the last 24 hours. Each of those is an total for large sections of the US. The CAISO and PJM are both over 500 miles across in their longest dimension.
Wind and solar make warm-and-fuzzy infographics, but the practical answer for alternative energy has been known for decades: nuclear.
Currently, there just isn't an economic need to switch off fossil fuels. The US has an enormous supply of coal. Combine that with fracking oil, and it'll be a long time before we really need other energy sources. (I'm of course sidelining environmental concerns. It's economics that drive energy.)
...But once fossil fuels do finally run out in years and years and we have to finally get serious, we'll choose the obvious solution: one that's compact, location/weather independent, and sufficiently plentiful.
1. Most of the mentioned energy sources are not provide stable baseline (e.g. solar, wind). We will need significant amount of storage which is omitted.
2. Some sources doesn't exist yet at any significant scale (wave devices, tidal turbine). It may be just more economical to have more solar or wind thanks to scale effect.
There are only about ten good locations for tidal power in the world. #1 is the Bay of Fundy, and it's not near anything that could use the power. Also, effective tidal power means building big dams, which raises big environmental objections.
One of the interesting things about wind and solar is that they can output less than the potential production at will.
So if you have a regular peak demand of 10GW, you provision for 12Gw of predicted continuous production, then simply turn off the portion of production that is not required.
This is not possible with steam or gas turbines because they have a huge lead and lag time to cope with while wind and solar are for all intents and purposes instantly switchable.
No storage required.
One use for storage storage is when 1kWh of storage becomes cheaper than an extra kW of production required to meet that 1hr peak. Since wind power is around 7¢/kWh at the moment, there is not much chance of this happening any time soon.
A more likely use for storage is to remove dependency on fragile interconnects. Remote towns can use batteries today to help insulate the residents from temorary loss of power due to ice, wind, fire, etc damaging transmission lines and equipment.
Sooo, the title says that The world can transition and then the web page presents a map of the US to click on. Nice.
This reminds me of being on a tour in an old salt mill in Italy and at one point the guide asking some people where they are from. The answers were: Spain, France and then "Boston". The guide asked again and then he said, because obviously that clarifies it: "Boston, Mass".
> The world can transition to 100% clean, renewable energy
Yes, at 5-10% of its present population and with a sudden, overwhelming and universal attack of wisdom about the problems caused by uncontrolled population growth. Otherwise, this is more eco-fantasy that ignores the obstacle produced by ... too many people.
If the US absolutely had to do this, it could. It would mean building a lot of pumped storage plants, wind farms, solar panel installations, and EHV transmission lines. But it could be done.
The biggest pumped storage plant in the world is in the US, and it can generate 3GW at peak. Peak demand for the California ISO is about 40GW. California would need maybe ten plants of that size. A pumped storage plant requires two reservoirs with a big height difference, and California has lots of unused mountains. It doesn't use much water once filled up; the same water is pumped up and down.
25 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 55.1 ms ] threadI get that we can improve our energy options, but you need that base load covered, and that is either nuclear or fossil fuels at the moment.
I've seen hybrid systems sold to homeowners where solar power is used to charge a battery, and surplus beyond that is used for heating hot water storage. They're more of less completly independent from the grid, both for power and heat.
A global power network.
Peak loads would balance themselves approximately with the lack of need of energy at the opposite side of the earth.
Also, wind and solar energy generation would vary much less on a global scale.
Of course, there are calculations as to why this currently ineffective (AFAIK mainly loss of energy through transmission) but who knows when the next superconductor appears that could make it feasible.
Economically, it shouldn't cost much more than an internet.
There are examples of "fixed loss" systems where your loss is independent of distance, one of those is to use your excess power to make a long chain hydrocarbon and then transport the hydrocarbon by supertanker and then burn it to convert it back into electricity. You could also simply charge giant battery ships which would then head over to the destination and discharge (this is another electricity -> chemical ... chemical -> electricity transaction)
[1] I realize that is imprecise, the definition I'm using is put a megawatt of electrical power "in" (power cables) in Paris and pull a megawatt "out" of the other end in New York.
There was a really clever German idea to have giant concrete cylinders that sat on top of a hydraulic fluid (could be water, could be something else) and excess energy would pump in fluid, raising the cylinder, and then excess energy draw would drain fluid through a generator. It has the advantage that it can be built locally without the need for a big height difference. But you need a lot of them for serious base load compensation.
[1] http://content.caiso.com/green/renewrpt/DailyRenewablesWatch...
Currently, there just isn't an economic need to switch off fossil fuels. The US has an enormous supply of coal. Combine that with fracking oil, and it'll be a long time before we really need other energy sources. (I'm of course sidelining environmental concerns. It's economics that drive energy.)
...But once fossil fuels do finally run out in years and years and we have to finally get serious, we'll choose the obvious solution: one that's compact, location/weather independent, and sufficiently plentiful.
That's if you don't consider externalities - most importantly, CO2 levels and climate change.
1. Most of the mentioned energy sources are not provide stable baseline (e.g. solar, wind). We will need significant amount of storage which is omitted.
2. Some sources doesn't exist yet at any significant scale (wave devices, tidal turbine). It may be just more economical to have more solar or wind thanks to scale effect.
So if you have a regular peak demand of 10GW, you provision for 12Gw of predicted continuous production, then simply turn off the portion of production that is not required.
This is not possible with steam or gas turbines because they have a huge lead and lag time to cope with while wind and solar are for all intents and purposes instantly switchable.
No storage required.
One use for storage storage is when 1kWh of storage becomes cheaper than an extra kW of production required to meet that 1hr peak. Since wind power is around 7¢/kWh at the moment, there is not much chance of this happening any time soon.
A more likely use for storage is to remove dependency on fragile interconnects. Remote towns can use batteries today to help insulate the residents from temorary loss of power due to ice, wind, fire, etc damaging transmission lines and equipment.
This reminds me of being on a tour in an old salt mill in Italy and at one point the guide asking some people where they are from. The answers were: Spain, France and then "Boston". The guide asked again and then he said, because obviously that clarifies it: "Boston, Mass".
US: 300 million people, 3.8 million sq miles
EU: 500 million people, 3.9 million sq miles
Yes, at 5-10% of its present population and with a sudden, overwhelming and universal attack of wisdom about the problems caused by uncontrolled population growth. Otherwise, this is more eco-fantasy that ignores the obstacle produced by ... too many people.
The biggest pumped storage plant in the world is in the US, and it can generate 3GW at peak. Peak demand for the California ISO is about 40GW. California would need maybe ten plants of that size. A pumped storage plant requires two reservoirs with a big height difference, and California has lots of unused mountains. It doesn't use much water once filled up; the same water is pumped up and down.